U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > California
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 07-10-2013, 02:47 PM
 
Location: SW MO
23,605 posts, read 31,482,868 times
Reputation: 29071

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by countofmc View Post
You just got your notice from the media. Kinda like how the rest of us are finding out we are on the hook for your ridiculous pensions from the media as well.

Now continue your self-entitled moaning. It's really endearing.

Like I said, enjoy the gravy train while it lasts.
Just to educate you, mine will last, as will my wife's, until we're both dead. You see, the Supreme Court has already ruled on it and said states must meet their contractual obligations to their retirees.

Doesn't that just give you a warm, fuzzy feeling? It does me when cretins full of rage rant and rave against it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-10-2013, 02:49 PM
zdg
 
Location: Sonoma County
841 posts, read 1,707,704 times
Reputation: 1123
Quote:
Originally Posted by SportyandMisty View Post
The contracts are not valid. They are not the result of arms-length negotiations. They are the result of "legalized" bribery in the form of campaign contributions, endorsements & threats of endorsement of opponents & campaign contributions to opponents.

In the private sector, union bosses don't choose the person on the other side of the bargaining table (management).

In the public sector, they do. That is why these contracts must be held invalid and non-enforceable.
I am talking about the contract signed between the government and the employee, not the contract that set up the pensions in the first place.

If you go in to take a job and are contractually guaranteed certain benefits if you hold up your end of the bargain (by working under the rules and guidelines set forth), you are entitled to those benefits.

To be clear; I am more in agreement with you all on principle than not. I absolutely agree the pensions should be grossly overhauled going forward, starting immediately. I also agree that unions have far too much power in 2013 and that no party should be able to effectively control both sides of a negotiation. But I also see the fallout of pulling guaranteed benefits off the table after the fact. If you think things are bad now, wait until California becomes known as the state that promises real life-altering benefits but then takes them away after you've spent 20-40 years working for them. See how much you'll have to pay government workers to take those jobs now, since they'll have to be making enough to save for their own full retirements on the assumption that all the stated benefits they were guaranteed by contract are worthless.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-10-2013, 02:49 PM
 
11,191 posts, read 10,210,045 times
Reputation: 20612
Quote:
Originally Posted by Curmudgeon View Post
You should be happy to know that there have been and most likely will be major reforms of benefits and retirement perks going forward. What we old fogies who have already retired receive is water under the bridge unless the retiree worked for a city that declares bankruptcy. The state can't do so. Therefore, their former contracts with employees are legally binding. I'll be the first to admit that it was the pension as well as the benefits while working and in retirement that were a draw for me to enter state service although not my prime motivation to do so. The big thing was the opportunity to be of service to others. It was a given there would be those who wouldn't appreciate it and for some it's nothing more than pension envy. But they could have "joined up" as well.
Yes, I am happy, not for you or for me but for future taxpayers who already think the baby boomers have destroyed the country. Pension reform has been needed for a very long time. Maybe this transparency will explain to those who have been wondering why cities and counties can't seem to manage with the tax money they've been receiving. It will explain where a good chunk of the money is going.

Look. I'm not against you or what you receive each month. Some of my closest friends are retired law enforcement, correctional officers and firemen. I don't know what they bring in each month because we never talk about it. It's only here, on the net, where people openly publish about their earning and spending habits.

I would hope no one would begrudge you for going into the line of work you chose. Sure. People should always consider the pay and benefits before taking a position but as you stated, you liked being a service to others. That's what I liked about my job, too. I didn't work in the capacity as you but it didn't diminish my contribution to the public. I worked for them and enjoyed doing it. Anyway, I hope you'll, at least, try to understand that I'm not against public employee retirees being paid a pension for the work they did. They paid into the system and deserve it. I know what healthcare costs, however, and I think being given that, after retirement, without a dime contributed by the recipient, is disturbing. But, as you said, it's changing and that's a good thing, imo.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-10-2013, 02:51 PM
 
7,150 posts, read 8,801,998 times
Reputation: 3806
Quote:
Originally Posted by zombocom View Post
... I don't know if government employees are quite aware of just how they are viewed - especially when they insist on more taxes and less services to fund their far superior retirement benefits... That just doesn't go over well at a time when people in the private sector (if they even have a job) are making less money, and receive fewer benefits.
That is not at all a fair representation of government employees, zombocom. Few government employees are involved in any of these decisions you cite. And yes, they sure are aware of how they are viewed these days. Vilified at every turn of the page these days.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-10-2013, 02:52 PM
 
11,191 posts, read 10,210,045 times
Reputation: 20612
Quote:
Originally Posted by zdg View Post
So again, for the third time now, the only reason this benefit should not be extended is "because HereOnMars doesn't believe in it." Correct?
Gosh, no. I was simply stating my opinion on the subject, like so many here. To believe I am right about it, would be pretentious and arrogant, wouldn't it? I'm just another voice on a website, voicing my opinion about a subject, just like you do, too.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-10-2013, 02:52 PM
 
Location: SW MO
23,605 posts, read 31,482,868 times
Reputation: 29071
Quote:
Originally Posted by nullgeo View Post
That is not at all a fair representation of government employees, zombocom. Few government employees are involved in any of these decisions you cite. And yes, they sure are aware of how they are viewed these days. Vilified at every turn of the page these days.
I'm so upset!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-10-2013, 02:56 PM
 
11,191 posts, read 10,210,045 times
Reputation: 20612
Quote:
Originally Posted by Curmudgeon View Post
I'm so upset!

Here. This will help.

Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-10-2013, 03:00 PM
 
1,614 posts, read 1,748,917 times
Reputation: 803
Quote:
Originally Posted by nullgeo View Post
That is not at all a fair representation of government employees, zombocom. Few government employees are involved in any of these decisions you cite. And yes, they sure are aware of how they are viewed these days. Vilified at every turn of the page these days.
The statistics are there, the public sector is a much nicer place to work than the private sector. I don't blame anyone for wanting good pay and benefits - but that doesn't mean the people who are having to pay ever higher taxes are going to be okay with it. There is something fundamentally wrong with the system when taxes have to go up and services have to be reduced simply to pay for the benefits of employees (look at San Jose, it has fewer employees now by several thousand, simply so the city can fund the pension costs).

This is not a tenable situation, and the unions are not being very realistic about the solution - but why would they? their sole obligation is to get as much as possible for their union members...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-10-2013, 03:05 PM
 
Location: Carmichael, CA
2,009 posts, read 3,016,804 times
Reputation: 3204
When all is said and done, I honestly don't think most people even know what civil service employees even do, so they can hardly be expected to be supportive of their mandatory pension contributions.

During the course of answering telephone calls from the public, I was asked to: get a woman's son out of jail in another state; get a girl's possessions back from her ex-boyfriend; get the drugs back that a guy left in the trunk of his car that had been impounded; and, my favorite, personally retrieve a person's car that had been shipped by her ex to Estonia. Because, after all, "it's your job--I pay your salary." Every one of these calls ended up "escalated" meaning they talked to maybe four or five employees on up the ladder. Wonder how much that cost taxpayers?

A previous poster stated:

"This way, public sector union's pensions would work just like Social Security. Pay-as-you-go."

I hope the person was joking, cause "your" Social Security money is currently being used to fund the bulk of the druggy SSD people, with a slim to none hope that there will be enough people paying in by the time you retire.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-10-2013, 03:06 PM
zdg
 
Location: Sonoma County
841 posts, read 1,707,704 times
Reputation: 1123
Quote:
Originally Posted by HereOnMars View Post
Gosh, no. I was simply stating my opinion on the subject, like so many here. To believe I am right about it, would be pretentious and arrogant, wouldn't it? I'm just another voice on a website, voicing my opinion about a subject, just like you do, too.
Except that it is exactly what you are saying. My opinion is based on the fact that upholding contracts is the law and a basic function of a first world civilization. Your opinion, on the other hand, is based on a belief that you know what is best for "the taxpayers" based on how you feel.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Options
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2016 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > California
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top